There are serious errors in your form submission, please see below for details.

Search RTI Appeal

List of RTI Appeal

SNo. Registration No Appellate Authority Name Received date Reply Appeal Reply Doc
221 CICOM/A/E/20/00150 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for information regarding the “procedure mandated by the Information Commissioner to deal with RTI with multiple queries belong to the same public authority but different departments” and whether “the PIOs answer them separately or reply to all the queries that are received in the same application.” The CPIO, in his reply dated 20.08.2020, advised the Appellant to “go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain.” It is worth mentioning here that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
222 CICOM/A/E/20/00151 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for attendance records of last three years of information Commissioner Smt. VanajaSarna. The CPIO, in his reply, has informed the Appellant that “No such information is available on record in the Registry of IC(VN). It is worth mentioning here that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The factual position has been intimated by the CPIO. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
223 CICOM/A/E/20/00152 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not required to interpret information. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is the interpretation of the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Interpreting the provision of the Act, is beyond the duties of a CPIO. The Appellant may go through the RTI Act, 2005, as has been advised by the CPIO, specifically section 5 of RTI Act, 2005, which deals with the issue concerned. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
224 CICOM/A/E/20/00148 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2020 प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना, जनसूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जवाब और प्रार्थी द्वारा दाखिल प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रस्तुत आवेदन के माध्यम से कुछ विशेष परिस्थितियों के सन्दर्भ में जन सूचना अधिकारी से विधिकराय की अपेक्षा की है। यहाँ यह उल्लेख प्रासंगिक होगा कि सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2(च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल वह सूचना, जो लोक प्राधिकारी के पास उपलब्ध और उसके द्वारा धारितअथवा उसके नियंत्रणाधीन है, प्रदान कर सकता है। एक जन सूचना अधिकारी से यह अपेक्षा नहीं की जा सकती है कि वह उस सूचना का निर्माण करे, जो रिकॉर्ड का हिस्सा नहीं है। उससे यह भी अपेक्षित नहीं है कि वह परिकल्पित प्रश्नों का जवाब दे अथवा सूचना की व्याख्या करे। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जवाब तथ्यात्मक है और सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है। NA
225 CICOM/A/E/20/00149 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal made by the Appellant, it is observed that this appeal has been filed against the reply received by the Appellant against point 3 of the RTI application. It is important to note that the Appellant, against point No. 3, asked for information regarding action taken on his letter, that was received in Commission vide diary No. 673602 dated 11.06.2020. The Appellant through this letter had requested to revise the decision in case No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407. It is important to note that the RTI Act, 2005, does not confer any power to the Commission of review of its own decision. In this context the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 21.5.2010 in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs. CIC & Anr. [W.P. (C) 12714/2009] has held that: “Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal.” In light of the above, the reply sent by the CPIO against point No. 3 of the RTI Application is as per the provision of the RTI Act. Hence no further intervention is required on behalf of the undersigned. NA
226 CICOM/A/E/20/00144 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-08-2020 The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order. Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard. It is important to mention that as per the provision of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.” The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned NA
227 CICOM/A/E/20/00145 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-08-2020 The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order. Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard. It is important to mention that as per the provision of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.” The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned NA
228 CICOM/A/E/20/00146 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-08-2020 The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order. Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard. It is important to mention that as per the provision of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.” The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned NA
229 CICOM/A/E/20/00147 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-08-2020 The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order. Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard. It is important to mention that as per the provision of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.” The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned NA
230 CICOM/A/E/20/00143 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-08-2020 On perusal of the Appeal, RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that the Appellant through his RTI application, alleging that someone in the Commission has manipulated the CIC’s website to prevent the Appellant from filing non-compliance petition in his case decided by the Commission to protect the concerned respondent, has asked for some information, which is hypothetical in nature. The CPIO, Sh. R. Ritarama Murthy in his reply has informed the Appellant that the information sought for is in the form of queries eliciting comments/clarification and hence not information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create the information and he is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is not the information within the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO has also informed the Appellant the process of filing non-compliance petition to the Commission. Hence, the reply given by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA